tv The Kudlow Report CNBC April 30, 2010 7:00pm-8:00pm EDT
president obama touched on much of this in his white house press conference today, and cnbc washington correspondent john harwood joins us with all the details. good evening, john. >> reporter: hey there, larry. two big economic stories today. the first is that oil spill in the gulf, which complicates the president's effort to get energy legislation. remember, a key part of his outreach to republicans was expanding oil drilling and trying to per suede environmentalists it was worth the trade-off for getting some sort of action on carbon. in the wake of this oil spill, the balance between environmentalism, it's being more different to strike. >> we're going to make sure that any leases going forward have those safeguards. we've also dispatched teams to the gulf, and -- let me be clear. i continue to believe that
domestic oil production is an important part, but i've always said it must be done responsibly for the safety of our workers and our environment. >> the other big economic story today were the gdp figures. the administration, as you know, larry, because we discussed it earlier today, talked about it as a positive step, but was somewhat restrained in its the administration was, because they don't want to be too forward-leaning in declares a recovery at a time when 10% unemployment is affecting the mood of the american voters in a big ways. >> i understand that part. i read again his remarks, and he continues to talk about spending new money on various green initiatives. i want to ask you a cynical question. is he downplaying the recovery because they've got a batch of new spending coming and because they want to build existing spending into the baseline? >> reporter: well, they certainly do have more spending they want to do on green jon.
the president has some initiatives that congress hasn't acted on. especially if the broad, bipartisan legislation that the president favors, include a cap-and-trade sim on carbon does not make it and the odds are getting more difficult with every passing week, the green energy spending that the president wants to do to encourage alternative energy sources becomes more important, so you with expect there would be an energy bill this year, probably not with the carbon cap, and it's interesting to see what exactly they're going to come up with that can produce a majority coalition, giving how liberal democrats feel about nuclear and about oil dreyling in the wake of this spill and conservatives feel about spending. >> john harwood, best in the business, thank you very much. have a very, very great weekend. i want to do some kudlow 101, and some -- i'm going to show you a bunch of let me start
out with the good news. we had a strong gdp -- moderately strong. we will take it. this is the third consecutive quarter. no question the recession ended last summer, so q3, q4, and q1 of this year, an thank heavens were growing again. america needs it. i want to just note, we still have some v shapes on this it does track on real gdp. that is some good news. let me clear this and go to the next one. the best part of this story was a large increase, 13.5% in big visit spending. this is called cap ex. this is really important. businesses are profitable it's a
u and a v. i'm just going to draw a "v." use your imagination. after all, that's what art is all about, and i'm married to a great artist, so i will draw a page from her. this is a harbinger of much better things, including profits to expand plant and equipment, but to hire workers. so i like that a lot. personal spending went up 3.6%, real personal spending. and here's two interesting points. number one, we see a v-shape there. we're also seeing, by the way, the stuff about the new normal, where consumption goes way down. it's not happening. connell assumption is still about 70% of gross domestic product, so no collapse of personal spending and consumer spending. the final chart is -- let's see,
next up, inventories rose by 35 billion. as you know, they've been dropping for many quarters, and that's a major cause of this recession. and therein lies the very, very good news, so we've got inventories, we've got consumer spending, we've got business cap ex, we've got rising gdp. let me show you the most interesting parts of our story. we are three quarters into the recovery so far. we have 3.7 gdp growth on average for the three quarters. let me pause there. during it is reagan recovery of 1983, we were running 7% to 8%. that is a comparable, very bad recession, and the recovery jump was 7% to 8%. the other really bad one was 1973 to '75. in 1975, the economy was growing at 5% to 6%.
i will take 3.7%, but it is on the low side. let me point out something to you. consumer spending pce, contributed 1.9% at an annual rate to this recovery. inventories, right here contributed 2% to this recovery, so it's being driven by consumers and by kniffin tore rebuilding. nothing wrong with that. here's what's interesting. business investment flat, and perhaps the most important thing of all, government, lack at this. government spending has made no contribution whatsoever to the first three quarters of this recovery. we have spent a bloody fortune, as you know. government purchasing are in the
gdp accounts. they come to about $100 billion. government transfer payments are not scored because they don't produce anything. it's essentially taking from peter to give to paul. there have been about $100 billion of tax benefits on top of this. the government spending part of this, in total, we are told by the congressional business office has not contributed a dime. in fact, federal state and local, it's offset a small decline in state and local, but very small. one is up 0.3, the other is down 0.3. it's nothing. i must say to you, my own view is the kenzian has ultimate utterly failed, and as government spending actually decline, but my point is -- let
me get a bigger situation. right here, government spending, zero contribution to gdp. consumers 2%, inventories 2%. business investment and net exports and trade, 0. where was the government spending kicker that has virtually bankrupted america as we move toward debt to gdp of 100%. we would have been better off to lower business tax rates for large and small companies, which would have also been passed along lower costs to individuals and to leave all taxes stable instead of threatening big tax hikes next year along with the fed monetary tightening that we all expect could damage this economy. we should have gone down the tax-cutting road for some supply-side incentives. this government spending stuff didn't work and i want to hear the reaction to this from our dynamic duo.
this is a very serious debate. the evidence is in. government spending minus 2% in the first quarter of 2010, and for the whole recovery, three quarters so far, it's been dead flat, $860 billion later. that is a greece-like outrage. let's talk to cnbc contributor and former labor sect tore robert reich, the author of the excellent book "supercapitalism" and stephen moor" ought thor of "return to prosperity." robert, i came down kip of hard. they numbers don't lie. the multiplier, deficit spending, has done nothing to promote economic growth. >> well, professor kudlow, let me remind you of a couple things. first of all, this was an unusually deep recession, and it was an unusual recession not only in terms of the depth, but also in terms of the fact it was
not brought on, as previous recessions have been brought on, by the fed overshooting. it was brought on by the bursting of a huge asset bubble. that meant that the private sector was deleverages like mad. the public sector had to leverage up. you're absolutely right that there was some offset from state and local cutting back to the federal government actually spending more. so the net effect has not been huge, at least with regard to the time period you're looking at, but had the federal government not spent, we would be looking at a much slower recovery. it will be a slow recovery even as it is. >> i hear bob reich, good friends and i want to lower the tone a bit, because i maybe get too enthusiastic about the demise. >> you never get too enthusiastic about anything. >> we love you, bob. you know that, but steve moore, the numbers are the numbers of
are after this extraordinary spending, we spent about $100 billion, and it affected nothing. it affected nothing in the gdp report. it didn't raise it or lower it. it was like a zero. when you total this up, steve, we're looking at $860 billion, i don't know where it went. it may be built into the current service budget baseline, it may be bankruptic this country. it may be giving us a debt to gdp situation that's greece-like. it may wind up simping the u.s. dollar before long. nothing has worked regarding this government spending, steve. i want you to weigh in, and i want you to tell me why, and i want you to tell me what we should be doing about it. >> because the reich/cains multiplier effect has always been buvg. i think that you put your finger on one of the problems. remember, this is all saw as
important construction projects, shovel-ready projects. it turns out, and these numbers confirm this, that most of the money that was spent was just rob peter to pay paul, as you said, they were income transfer programs which in my opinion have no effect on adding to gdp. >> wait a minute, wait a minute. steve moore, let's dissect this a bit. one third of the stimulus was for tax cuts. a third of the tax cuts was for state and local to defer and roll back a lot of the state and local cuts. that left a third of the stimulus for such things as infrastructure. >> but it's not showing up, bob. that's the point. here's the point. first of all, those tax cuts, i was against those. those were just payments to peel, like welfare checks. they had no supply-side effects. but you are right about one thing. states and localities are tightening their belts,
balancing their budgets, you see it in new jersey, and in virginia. they're balancing their budgets by making the tough cuts. nothing like that has happened in washington to make government work -- >> i want to make sure we understand the magnitude -- >> wait a minute, wait a minute. >> hang on, bob. i know, but look. >> when the states are cutting by $250 billion over two years, that's a fiscal drag. >> no, no, they're becoming more efficient. it's an efficiency game. i totally disagree with that. it's basically making state and local governments more efficient. they're delivering services at a lower costs. that's what businesses do. >> but you supply-siders seem to think that imaginically the demand side will take care of itself. that is dreaming. that's on another planet. >> listen, i don't know whether government spending -- >> unemployment at 9.7%. people need jobs. >> i want to create jobs. i want to -- >> one more thing. >> hang on. i want demand and i want supply
and growth. >> one more point. >> hang on, robert. robert, i want to address your criticism. i'm for demand, and i'm for supply. >> and there's no supply. >> most of all, i'm not seeing any demand or supply from the government spending. that's the point i'm making. federal increase in gdp was minuscule, less than one half of 1%, offsetting an equally minuscule effect for state and local gdp. it was a wash. there's no supply effect, there's no demand effect, no multiplier effect. this is one of the clearest laboratory experiments of a big government spending model that i've ever seen, and after three quarters of recovery nothing, no results, no impact at all. that's why i say it's a waste of money. >> let me give you an example. >> no, no, no, let me give you an example. >> how about that -- >> all right. all right. go ahead, robert, please.
>> let met give you another example. somebody who's unemployed, that gets a transfer payment, they then have money in their pockets to buy something on main street that enables somebody else -- >> no, bob, you're paying people to -- >> all right, one at a time. >> wait a minute, let's be clear here. those charts you're using do not show any multiplier effect, because by definition, your charts are not included in the multiplier effect. >> bob reich, you can't apply the multiplier effect. >> there's no multiplier effect. >> people have money in their effects. >> transfers don't affect any output. the multiplier effect has got to focus on the government purchasing and the employees that contribute to the government purchases. >> that's right. >> that's the definition of this thing. >> i'm using the keynesian model, and it shows we have thrown all billions of dollars
to no effect. i want this on the table. in my humble pin, you will denigrate this. >> not so humble. >> steve moore, why didn't we leave tax rates alone from the bush tax cuts, and why didn't we take a couple hundred billion that didn't work in terms of this government spending and apply it to big reductions in business tax rates for large corporations, the so-called c-corps, and small businesses, the so-called s-corps. i tell you this not only would it have incentivized them, but they would pass those tax cuts along to individuals, and therefore would have been a tax cut to the entire economy, and in the bargain would have enhanced their -- >> what i'm saying is, instead of throwing this money away with no discernible effect on the economy as the blackboard showed, why couldn't we have tried another supply-side experiment, because in the reagan years, we had 7% to 8% rebound, not 3.7.
>> that's right. we had four quarters in 1983, when the economy expanded, it grew at a little over 8%. and you're right, if we went to $850 billion that we've allocated for this stimulus that has not worked, we could have suspended completely the corporate income back for two years. but i've got to say one quick thing. please, bob. >> no, you're both worty adversaries. >> do not make the point that paying people not to work increases the economy, because that is the most back backwards economic idea i've ever heard. >> he's the former labor secretary. we must give him equal time. >> so many you have put so many wrong statements on the table. i have a hard time knowing which one to respond to. >> in terms of unemployment, steve, if you believe for a second there are large numbers of people who are out there not working because they're getting an unemployment check --
>> they're not looking for jobs. >> you're on a different planet. i don't know which planet it is. >> we'll argue this another time. >> number two -- >> real quick. >> yes, sir. the so-called v-shaped rebound out of the reagan recession was actually because paul volcker and the fed reduced interest rates. they had created that recession. >> how about this guy? are you kidding me? >> paul volcker's recession. >> voelker reduced interest rates to about 13%. this guy bernanke reduced them to 0, and still you're not getting anything. what matter here is tax cuts. >> because you had a huge asset bubble. >> you will come around to the view that tax cuts -- >> no, no, i speak reality, not ideology. >> look at the bleakboard. i'm going to do 101 all over. >> this is reality-based -- >> robert reich, you are so
terrific. steve moore, good to see you as well. coming up on "the kudlow report," reports that a criminal investigation have begun against goldman sachs sent financial stocks plummeting. we'll lay out the legal details with tom kern, a former prosecutor. and we'll look at the market reaction. what was it, greece? greece? goldman and oil, all weighs heavily on the stock market. i don't know, we have some breaking news tonight. they're calling out the national guard to help with the massive cleanup of that big oil spill that's threatening the gulf coa coast. a nasty story. greece, goldman and oil, and then again supply-side tax cuts. can we all agree now, finally? government spending doesn't work? keynesian multipliers should be taken behind the barn and shot? we'll be back in just a few minutes. these nest next few days are
the potential to become one of the most severe environmental disasters in american history. brian schactman has the report. good evening, brian. >> reporter: thank you very much. people aren't even waiting. louisiana governor bobby jindal, the oyster beds are shut down for precautionary measures. the fishermen are not expecting
a fishing season. think went to local schools to try to sign up for cleanup crews. in terms of the path, while the wind and surf is create ago huge problem. mississippi and alabama definitely in play. the florida panhandle already considered an emergency situation. when it comes to the oil that's flowing, instead of 5,000 barrels, some are saying it could be exponential more, but the theme is don't wait to see what the shores look like. we'll be covering it through the entire process, but people don't want to see it, because they already feel like it's going to get ugly. >> thanks very much, brian. later on we'll look at the money politics of this story. i, of course, want to drill, drill, drill, we will clean this up after this unfortunate accident. now, turning back to the markets today, which fell substantially day and for the week, reports that goldman sachs is under criminal investigation, this is the top of the civil
suit filed by the s.e.c. that led stocks on a downward tumble. let's talk about this from a legal beagle. we have tom kern, pecker and abramson, and our ace investors jim le camp, and dan fitzpatrick of stock market mentor.com. my mentor. in plain queen's english, this isn't really a criminal investigation. is this a routine probe by the justice department here in new york, the u.s. attorney for the southern district? or is it something bigger? >> you always have to assume it's something bigger than that. i think the u.s. attorney's office is conducting an investigation to see whether or not -- and you have to think it's more than what we have seen with aig and paulson. if you sigh it 20 more times, maybe it rises to the level -- if they had 20 more vehicles
like the aca/paulson vehicle. >> more cdos? >> correct. >> more synthetic cdos? ifrlts if you had a problem where one problem exists and it doesn't rise to the level of criminality, but if you have it over and over and over again such that you have systemic conduct, because maybe that does rise to that imaginary line. >> what's your bet? >> my bet is that they don't get prosecuted. >> i've heard enough analysis, i need an opinion. >> my opinion is they won't get criminally prosecuted. i think they're taking a look, as they must, and i think that violations of securities laws are always potentially criminal. >> do you agree, dan fitzpatrick? >> yes, i do. he's right, they've got to take a look at it. it smells a bit of politics in here as well. you can't hartley get away from that, but civilly, you hear a lot of experts say they're going to have a hard time proving the civil indication, the burden of
proof is a lot less in a civil case. this will be a big problem for goldman as well as the financial industry, though, from a headline risk, the risk of owns that sector right now is up. you can see that with goldman. it's still got quite a bit of potential down side before we see support, at least from my standpoint. >> we have to stay short, brief and succinct. down off 159 points. for the week off to close to 200 points, the worst week since january. on the bank stock stores, the kbw bank index was down 4% for the week. today it fell 1.5%. goldman sachs itself fell 8% for the week, citigroup 10%, morgan stanley 5%, jpmorgan chase 5%. jim, i want to turn to a related matter, but much different. the goldman hearings in the senate this past week, now, what you're hearing -- and this is interesting -- congress and bank
regulation may cause a redefinition of market making to something called fiduciary responsibility. if they mean that these market makers will become financial advisers, then they can no longer make a markets but short securities that they may be selling to customers. some people believe that would take away large amount the profit. you follow me, jimmy? you know this business better than i do. if fiduciary responsibility is put into bank regulation, and if they are relabeled financial advisers, then you can't sell or short for your own account the products that you're selling to your customers, and that's in the market because these big firms do that routinely and quite profitably. >> larry, they are running dangerously into a situation where the u.s. will be seen as a place not to do big with financials. >> do you agree with that point? >> i agree with your point.
>> i want our viewers to hear this. that is part and parcel of the sell-off. it's not just the criminality of goldman, it's the changing of the entire business. >> it is. you're absolutely right. what it's going to do, if they do this, and you're describing it correctly, is they're going to punish liquidity, they're going to dry up liquidity. all these big bankses, institutions won't be trading in the same way. that will drive money out of the united states if we don't have the same liquidity that we've had in the past. >> dan fitzpatrick, also a threat in the bank regulation bill. i'm not even going to mention the bank tax hike, because that's so stupid, i don't even want to deal with it, but i do want to mention this. these firms may have to sell off, get rid of their proprietary trading and their derivatives trading and their swaps trading, another huge source of revenues and profits. in other words, if washington makes these big banks spin off this profitable area, then that -- isn't that dawning
realization starting to impact this downward slide in stocks despite the fact that the fed is still keeping money at zero? >> yes, assuming that comes to pass, then this decline is just the beginning stages here. you can't effectively nationalize the financial industry, nor can you impose a fiduciary duty on everyone who is dealing with other counterparties. that's just not the way business works. i know it sounds great in theory. "should" is the most overused word in the english language, also the most useless one. the bottom line is when you start trying to regulate all these banks which, by the way, wasn't even the cause of the problem to begin with -- >> i understand. >> it's ridiculous. >> i want to go to tom curran. i want to ask you this. there's a lot of talk that all this threat from the u.s. attorney's office will move goldman to make a quick settlement behind the scenes, maybe a billion or whatnot with
the s.e.c., and that, whether this is right or wrong, just or unjust, but people are saying, they get themselves a new chairman of the board or maybe a new ceo to represent the firm and that will get the u.s. attorney/justice department off their back. tom, i've described that scenario. i need an opinion. >> it's a possible scenario, but under that scenario, you'll totally change a worldwide player, and the consequences for that is not something that criminal prosecutors or even the s.e.c. should be dictating. we've got to get out of here. thank you, tom curran, jim la camp, and dan fitzpatrick. next year's tax hikes versus tremendous profits, a v-shaped recovery, and that you will that glitters is gold. what does that mean? is it related to greece? free money from the fed? higher taxes next year? all sorts of things.
this is the court. we will be right back. ♪ let the market figure it out ♪ let the market ♪ let the market figure it out (announcer) roundup extended control does two jobs... at once. one: kills weeds to the root. two: forms a barrier, preventing new ones for up to four months. roundup extended control.
are key depressants to the stock market. let's come back to jimmy la camp and dan fitzpatrick. jim, we're getting a mild v-shaped recovery. the profits story is very, very good. fed is pouring in free money, okay? even the dollar is nice and steady. but i go down the road and i'm starting to think as we move into may, maybe 2011, tax hikes 2011, tax rates are going up, dividend tax, capital gains tax, personal tax, dividend tax much bigger, 40% being discussed in congress. is this the big correction for 2011 or not? i ask you, jim? >> i don't think so. i think it is a correction, we've been looking for a correction, and the bear sentiment has been way too lo low, and leading stocks started to sell off. further more you started to see commodities like gold perform other like base metal
commodities. >> what's that mean? tell me what that means. gold is hot as a pistol. it was as hot as a pistol. now it's moving back towards $1200. >> if you see copper and lumber moving ahead, you see investors expect a bigger economic recovery, about but if you see gold moving ahead, investors are fearful of inflation. i think that's the signal. >> does that have anything to do with free money from the fed? it's really great. they're going to jack up taxes, but the fed is going to continue free money for most of this year. they're a bunch of with uses except for tom hone ig, a rising star. so that means more money chasing fewer goods, which means inflation, which means lacamp may have it right. >> i think gold goes to $1,500.
it has been for quite a while. we can get as technical as you want to, but gold is correlating quite nicely to the dollar, and the dollar's moving higher, gold is moving higher. there certainly is a risk of inflation, the only question is timing. look, we've got one big huge game of professional kick the can going on in washington right now. >> what does that mean? >> in other words, the hard decisions aren't being made, just what you're talking about. they keep the interest rates low to prolong the pain until the next election cycle. we're going to raise taxes. there's so much trepidation out there? the business world. >> we're spending $860 billion, had no impact on gdp whatsoever. that was the whole point, none, zero, so why did we need that? it's bankrupting us. it's like greece, pushing or debt, it's nutty at 16 fruitcakes from california, and all it's doing is jacking up tax rates, causing people to go into
gold and probably going into asia. their currencies are stronger, their economies are stronger and they're not raising taxes on investors. >> as i mentioned before, this is domestic tariff-ism. we're making it different for our own agencies. that's what happens when you let the fear-iticians make the laws. >> i want housewives on the federal reserve board. >> buying or selling, give me a window on monday? >> no, i'm not buying -- this is a correction. i think we have further to go, but i ultimately want to be a buyer. >> you ultimately want to be a buyer. jim la camp, do you ultimately want to correct and be a buyer? >> yes, we do. we want to go back to emerging markets. he's right. when you kick the can down the road, it's much bigger, and the can is getting way too big. >> sooner or later you run out of money. >> you have the washington
rendition of the great broadway show "cancan" and instead of wiggling their cans and knocking down our financial business and knocking down investors and raising tax rates and spending through their keesters having no economic impact, we need some fiscal and monetary and tax reform from the tea party kids, from the contract with america. >> are we not watching what's happening in greece? >> yeah, i don't have -- >> it's right in front of our eyes and we're doing the same thing. >> give me a quick grecian formula, real quick. >> if you look at the history of targeted tax cuts and spending cuts, that's the way you get out of these things. >> but here's my proper. if the european union wants to bail out greece, fine. that's their problem. if the european union wants to bail them out, but why should the imf do it? because the american taxpayers will pay that bill and imf will be the junior creditor to the
eu. it's a terrible deal. >> i agree, but the european union will not vote on this deal, it will be the imf, and all they're doing is kicking it further down the road. >> i'm just going to call this "cancan." we're going to play that show. pretty good show. mr. fitzpatrick, thank you very much. mr. la camp, thank you very much. on "the kudlow report" we're going back to louisiana, the very latest on the massive oil spill, and then we're going to ask an energy expert, what does this mean? does this mean the end of drill drill drill offshore? all i know is energy prices are going north. that could hurt the which i. cloirt, we will be right back. i believe free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
washington responding. 6,000 national guard troops have been approved to move into the weekend. the wind is very strong and picking up, pushing the waves and oil over some of the booms that have already been set. it's expected to push oil into mississippi, alabama, maybe even potential florida, so that is not a good situation. this is something that is going to continue until they get this well capped. >> jay, thanks very very much. we're going to bring in chris horner, senior fellow competitive enterprise institute, author of "power grab." >> hi. give me real quick, number one, what does this do to obama's plan to open up offshore drilling? >> well, i think what it does is causes those who are voicing possible support for doing something they really want to do, to back off from it which
politically may make a difference. >> a negative, real quick. we're going to come back. you're saying this is bad for drill drill drill offshore. >> obama didn't open anything, so if you wii gin with that proposition, his self-pitch obviously wasn't true. >> is it more or less good or bad for drill drill drill. >> nothing was proposed, but it's not good. this is political. >> all right. second, real fast, cap and trade, how might it impact the threat of a massive energy sector takeover by a cap-and-trade bill you've washington. >> ironically it could kill it. that's the good news. chris, stay right where you have. much more work to do. i don't think drill drill is dead, but we'll see. give us two minutes for this quick break. d# 1-800-345-2550 if it was up to me?
tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investment firms wouldn't even dream of overcharging people. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 in fact, they'd spend all of their time dreaming up ways tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to give us more for our money. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i guess i'd just like to see a little more give tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and a little less take, you know? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if it was up to me, they'd spend a lot more time tdd# 1-800-345-2550 worrying about my bottom line. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 (announcer) at charles schwab, investors rule. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are you ready to rule?
bloo. all right. back with chris horner. he's the author of the book "power grab." power as in, i think fuel and electricity and those sorts of things. do i have that right? >> you've got it right, larry. >> let me ask you one thing. i don't want to sound like a killjoy, but life goes on. in terms of oil spills, doesn't it rate near the low end of
historic oil spills, including the "exxon valdez". >> the key is this is the first one for a while, but hue does it compare to natural seepage? this is a product we extract from the earth, and it does occasionally leak, including daily naturally in volumes slightly less than this. energy is nothing by a highly politicized issue. >> so let me take it a step at a time. on the political impact, now, look, the price of oil is '86 a barrel. many believe it's going to $100 gasoline retail is moving toward $3. the economy is recovering worldwide more or less. wouldn't it be better if we sent a signal that we were producing more oil and gas at this point? would that be better? might not that have some
positive effect on tempering prices? >> of course it would. that's why they make up such silly arguments. if this is all you used which dealing with anwr and so on. but remember, the president runs around claiming he opened up areas all of which were already opened as a head fake to seal off most of the likely volume. this is not a sincerely pro-energy administration. >> i appreciate that. i don't want to go down that road too much, because he has to give the okay for any new leasing. we were going to have leasing in the gulf. there's a one-month moratorium, as i understand it, to investigate these so-called causes of the bp spill in the gulf coast. what happens after a month? you'll have a lot of political guys saying no, no, no? or do you think drill, drill, drill, whatever degree, is still alive? >> it's still alive. i think the bigger question was they were desperate to pass an energy bill this year waiting for the gas price spikes.
this will kill that bill if they cake out the actual energy portions, because then cap and trade is stark raving naked, and they lose support. >> let me pursue this, very interesting point. you're saying a cap-and-trade deal couldn't survive unless offshore drilling were part of it. therefore, if you take offshore drilling out, cap and trade is totally dead. is that what you're saying? >> yes, the ultimate pligt cat impact would be the ultimate political irony. without lindsey graham's political cover, you don't have bipartisan or tripartisan port and you're losing people who didn't wane to go with it anyway. you certainly lose some people that may have been come along with window dressing. the entire model falls apart. that's why, again, the impact is what -- the important impact will be what this does to the legislation, because we were going to get window dressing in return for a bag -- give away magic beans for cap and trade.
>> i'm going to try to get into president obama head, not an easy thing to do. i'm going to guess because he wants cap and trade, i do not, he does not, he will reopen drilling, and cap and trade will have to be beaten on its own merits on the floor. >> real quickly, it's what goes into the next five-year plan is all he said he would consider. the other question is what's in the legislature for the future. for the next five years he's not going to allow a whole lot. >> chris horner, thank you ever so much. good to see you again. coming up, my kudlow nobel prize. i hired someone to make my website... five months ago. we are building a website by ourselves. announcer: there's an easier way. create your own small-business site with intuit websites. just choose a style that fits your business and customize, publish and get found in three easy steps. sweet.
the nobel insight, not the prize, goes to tom curran for warning us there could be criminal charges against goldman. ultimately the nobel prize goes to that person who stops government spending, because as i showed tonight, it does not help economic growth. with expedia, when you book your flight and hotel
sharon osbourne's illness kept her out of the game. trump: sharon's still not here. i don't know what's happening with sharon. announcer: and special guest country-music star trace adkins joined as mr. trump's eyes and ears. you're going to make over two young country artists. announcer: on tenacity, project manager cyndi lauper struggled to keep control of her team. cyndi: do you think that i stepped on you when i was -- when i was the manager? i let everybody do what they wanted. holly: cyndi, i'm just -- you're not even letting me finish my thought. holly: she just blew off anything we had to say, and i mean anything. you're just, like, blocking me. i'm not understanding where that's coming from. all right. i'm not blocking. announcer: on rocksolid, project manager goldberg handed creative control to bret michaels. bret: don't start thinking of tractors and hay bales.
bill: you have to defer to the experts. makes me feel a little useless. maria: hello, there! announcer: after meeting with rising stars emily west and luke bryan... nice to meet you. yeah, yeah. announcer: ...the tension between cyndi and her team escalated... maria: can you do a couple where you look off? cyndi: please step out. announcer: ...while the men had a struggle of their own. it's way out of my box. curtis: we're supposed to be giving him a makeover. he doesn't want to look any different to how he looks right now. announcer: in the end, both teams brought out the best in their artists. [ cheers and applause ] but back in the boardroom, the women brought out their worst. did maria help you? she just sticks herself in there when she shouldn't. "girls just want to be mean." announcer: comparing both teams' work, sharon didn't hold back. sharon: they did a much better job. announcer: but in spite of sharon's observations, the women triumphed. you're gonna get $20,000. thank you so much. [ clapping ]